6 ms·

(Essential background: The author is head of the leading ideologically conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute. For example, IIRC they were b

(Essential background: The author is head of the leading ideologically conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute. For example, IIRC they were behind many of the neo-cons who advocated the Iraq invasion and related policies.) Most importantly, the author desires an ideological war. Like any smart advocate, he makes his case by framing the discussion: What he says assumes there is an ideological contest and, due to the way framing works, nobody questions it; they unconciously accept his framework when responding. But I don't think most people are members of one ideological movement or another. I suspect most people have a nuanced, inconsistent mix of beliefs. Personally, and I know many agree, I think ideology of any kind is the enemy, and I won't accept his presumption that I too am a dogmatic ideologue. . Also, the author seems to desire a sort of affirmative action for conservative ideological ideas: They should be given a place regardless of their merits, simply because they match his ideology. Why don't they (and he) have to pursuade their peers like the advocates of any other idea? It's a loser demanding he should get a trophy too. An aside: Academics are overwhelmingly liberal. People say it is a consequence of bias, but that is not necessarily true. If (broadly speaking) the smartest people are mostly liberal, maybe that tells us something.

replicatorblog 11y ago
"An aside: Academics are overwhelmingly liberal. People say it is a consequence of bias, but that is not necessarily true. If (broadly speaking) the smartest people are mostly liberal, maybe that tells us something." Test the logic of this aside by changing "Academics" to "software engineering" and replacing "Liberal" with "white/asian, straight, males." I don't think it holds up very well.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > Test the logic of this aside by changing "Academics" to "software engineering" and replacing "Liberal" with "white/asian, straight, males." I don't think it holds up very well. I don't think the analogy applies: Software engineer quality don't vary in quality by gender and race and even if they did, we want to treat people as individuals. We don't want to discrimate based on those factors. But Academia is a meritocracy of ideas; we do want to discriminate strongly against bad ideas. It's not a place where everyone gets a hearing - if it was, students and professors would spend 99% of their time on nonsense, learn little, and make little progress in their fields. For example, I think AEI (his organization) have been climate change deniers. Should their ideas on climate change get an equal hearing in university science departments? What about creationists who think the world was created in the last 10,000 years? What about those who think the world is ending next week?
brighteyes 11y ago
Your ad hominem attacks are completely inappropriate, and in fact might help prove the author's point, by your showing so much unwarranted hostility to him based solely on his politics. To the substance of your post: I don't see any reason to suspect he wants a "war" or even a "contest". All he is doing is showing a large, deep inconsistency in academia: 1. Academia believes diversity is good, not just for fairness, but for results. 2. Academia is massively uniform, politically. It has almost no diversity in that area. 3. Academia hugely cares about diversity in all other forms, but does not care at all about this particularly large lack of diversity in their own home. In other words, he's showing that academia is hypocritical. I don't see any way to avoid agreeing with him on 1-3 (even if I personally do not share his politics, which I do not).
- charlesism 11y ago
  It's unfair to claim "academia believes diversity is good" in this case. Nobody thinks all kinds of diversity are good. You could use the same premise to complain that universities are prejudiced against the "homicidal maniac community", or against the "comatose community".
  - brighteyes 11y ago
    You might be technically correct, no one thinks all diversities are good. But academia strongly believes in every type of diversity related to a personal aspect of a person - size, age, religion, sexuality, etc. etc. Political diversity clearly belongs there (in particular, it is often very closely tied to diversity of religion), unless someone very specifically excludes it.
    - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
      >Political diversity clearly belongs there (in particular, it is often very closely tied to diversity of religion), No, you don't want unlimited diversity of beliefs in an academic environment. You want to converge to the truth.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> An aside: Academics are overwhelmingly liberal. People say it is a consequence of bias, but that is not necessarily true. If (broadly speaking) the smartest people are mostly liberal, maybe that tells us something. Conservatives openly dismiss the value of academia compared to alternative pursuits like commercial industry. Why is it surprising that conservatives are, then, underrepresented in academia, even if there is neither any bias in selection to academic positions nor any correlation between intelligence and political orientation? Members of a ideological faction that is openly disdainful of academia are, unsurprisingly, less likely to choose to pursue academic careers.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > Conservatives openly dismiss the value of academia compared to alternative pursuits like commercial industry An good point. I suspect there is a strong conservative bias in the population of Fortune 500 executives, especially in the fossile fuel industries. Perhaps they need more political diversity too.

replicatorblog 11y ago

"An aside: Academics are overwhelmingly liberal. People say it is a consequence of bias, but that is not necessarily true. If (broadly speaking) the smartest people are mostly liberal, maybe that tells us something." Test the logic of this aside by changing "Academics" to "software engineering" and replacing "Liberal" with "white/asian, straight, males." I don't think it holds up very well.

hackuser 11y ago
> Test the logic of this aside by changing "Academics" to "software engineering" and replacing "Liberal" with "white/asian, straight, males." I don't think it holds up very well. I don't think the analogy applies: Software engineer quality don't vary in quality by gender and race and even if they did, we want to treat people as individuals. We don't want to discrimate based on those factors. But Academia is a meritocracy of ideas; we do want to discriminate strongly against bad ideas. It's not a place where everyone gets a hearing - if it was, students and professors would spend 99% of their time on nonsense, learn little, and make little progress in their fields. For example, I think AEI (his organization) have been climate change deniers. Should their ideas on climate change get an equal hearing in university science departments? What about creationists who think the world was created in the last 10,000 years? What about those who think the world is ending next week?

brighteyes 11y ago

Your ad hominem attacks are completely inappropriate, and in fact might help prove the author's point, by your showing so much unwarranted hostility to him based solely on his politics. To the substance of your post: I don't see any reason to suspect he wants a "war" or even a "contest". All he is doing is showing a large, deep inconsistency in academia: 1. Academia believes diversity is good, not just for fairness, but for results. 2. Academia is massively uniform, politically. It has almost no diversity in that area. 3. Academia hugely cares about diversity in all other forms, but does not care at all about this particularly large lack of diversity in their own home. In other words, he's showing that academia is hypocritical. I don't see any way to avoid agreeing with him on 1-3 (even if I personally do not share his politics, which I do not).

charlesism 11y ago
It's unfair to claim "academia believes diversity is good" in this case. Nobody thinks all kinds of diversity are good. You could use the same premise to complain that universities are prejudiced against the "homicidal maniac community", or against the "comatose community".
- brighteyes 11y ago
  You might be technically correct, no one thinks all diversities are good. But academia strongly believes in every type of diversity related to a personal aspect of a person - size, age, religion, sexuality, etc. etc. Political diversity clearly belongs there (in particular, it is often very closely tied to diversity of religion), unless someone very specifically excludes it.
  - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
    >Political diversity clearly belongs there (in particular, it is often very closely tied to diversity of religion), No, you don't want unlimited diversity of beliefs in an academic environment. You want to converge to the truth.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> An aside: Academics are overwhelmingly liberal. People say it is a consequence of bias, but that is not necessarily true. If (broadly speaking) the smartest people are mostly liberal, maybe that tells us something. Conservatives openly dismiss the value of academia compared to alternative pursuits like commercial industry. Why is it surprising that conservatives are, then, underrepresented in academia, even if there is neither any bias in selection to academic positions nor any correlation between intelligence and political orientation? Members of a ideological faction that is openly disdainful of academia are, unsurprisingly, less likely to choose to pursue academic careers.

hackuser 11y ago
> Conservatives openly dismiss the value of academia compared to alternative pursuits like commercial industry An good point. I suspect there is a strong conservative bias in the population of Fortune 500 executives, especially in the fossile fuel industries. Perhaps they need more political diversity too.